On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/9/12 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:06:35AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>>> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> [ ... ]
>>> + if (HAS_PCH_IBX(dev) || HAS_PCH_CPT(dev)) {
>>
>> Since the plan is to move all the hsw_crtc_stuff out into it's own
>> function I'd prefer a !HAS_PCH_LPT check here.
>
> I don't agree with the LPT check. Let me give some more details about
> my plan so you can understand why I did this.
>
> My plan was to add even more (HAS_PCH_IBX || HAS_PCH_CPT) checks to
> other places of this function and copy them all to the
> haswell_crtc_mode_set version since I'm still not sure we'll never
> ever have HSW with something older than LPT. After forking the Haswell
> version, the plan was to add a WARN(!(HAS_PCH_IBX || HAS_PCH_CPT)) to
> ironlake_crtc_mode_set and then remove the checks form it (leaving the
> checks on haswell_crtc_mode_set untouched and prepared for the 42 new
> PCHs they plan to ship after LPT). This code under the check was made
> specifically for IBX/CPT (and PPT) and only tested on it, so I guess
> the correct check is check for IBX/CPT.
>
> So, may I keep the IBX/CPT check? Should I change the plan instead?
Makes sense, so I'm ok with keeping these checks and code-blocks in
the haswell code. We can rip them out once haswell ships and we know
whether the hw guys want to ship 42 different pch models or not.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
